Dismissed

T.N.C.Narasimhacharyulu, v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC12 Dec 2006WP/17388/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the government taking over a registered temple. It held that without a challenge to the registration or an application under Section 87 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, mandamus will not lie to prevent interference with possession. The writ was dismissed, but the status quo was maintained for six weeks

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted four weeks to file an application under Section 87 of the Act; status quo maintained for six weeks pending such application.

T.N.C.Narasimhacharyulu, Vs Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 17388 OF 1997

¶3

Dated 1 2 th December, 2006

¶4

Between:

¶5

T.N.C. Narasimhacharyulu

¶6

…Petitioner And

¶7

Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool and others.

¶8

…Respondents.

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking over the administration of the Madhava Narayanaswamy @ Srinivasa Perumal Temple and the property endowed to it, situated at Mahasamudram village of Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and a consequential direction to the first respondent to enquire and decide the dispute regarding the character of the said temple under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

¶11

As per the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is the case of the petitioners that the great grand father of the first petitioner, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, constructed the Madhava Narayanaswamy @ Srinivas Perumal Temple situated in Mahasamudram village with his own funds and in his own land, and, the said temple is being managed by the members of the family without any aid from the Government or any other institution. It is further stated that the 3^rd respondent visited the temple and interfered with the affairs of the temple, which necessitated filing of the writ petition.

¶12

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the temple is situated in Survey No.165/2 of Mahasamudram village, which is notified as Gramakantam, but not in the land belonging to the petitioner, and, that the said temple is a registered temple under Section 43 and published under 6©(ii) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 vide Certificate No. 676 issued in that regard. It is further

¶13

stated that no application under Section 87 of the Act was filed before the competent authority claiming any rights over the temple.

¶14

Though the petitioners have stated that the temple was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioners in their private land, but the same is disputed in the counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the land on which the subject temple is constructed is notified as Gramakantam land and is situated in Survey No. 165/2 of Mahasamudram village. In any event, as the temple is stated to have been registered under Section 43 and published under Section 6©(ii) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, if the petitioners are aggrieved, they can seek appropriate relief by making an application to the competent authority under the Act. In the absence of challenge to the registration and publication, petitioners cannot seek any direction by way of mandamus not to interfere with the possession of the temple.

¶15

At the stage of admission, in the year 1997 itself this court granted interim order not to interfere with the administration of the subject temple and the same continued all along. It is stated that in view of the interim orders, petitioners are managing the temple. However, as much as no application is filed under Section 87 of the Act by the petitioner, no relief as sought for can be granted and it is open for the petitioners to make such an application under Section 87 of the Act seeking declaration as to the character of the temple.

¶16

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition keeping it open to the petitioners to move an application before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today and if any application is filed under Section 87 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, it is open for the competent authority to decide the same uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Inasmuch as it is stated that the

¶17

petitioners’ family alone is managing the affairs of the temple pursuant to the interim orders of this court, status quo obtaining as on today shall be continued for a period of six weeks from today and it is open for the petitioners to obtain appropriate interim orders from the competent authority.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶19

_____________________ 12.12.2006 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. VR Note: Issue cc within three days. (BO) VR

T.N.C.Narasimhacharyulu, v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.C.Narasimhacharyulu, v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. K.V. Narsaiah Supervisory Agency, Vs The District Educational Officer and District Project

Ch.Chinnababu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its

M/s. Srk Memorial Educational Socity, Plot No. 701, Vs The A.P. State Council of Higher Education

Namburi Nagamma Vs The Executive Officer

P. Laxmana Rao, s/o. Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs The Govt. Of A.P. rep by its secretary (Higher Education0

Sridhar Duddilla Vs Union of India